Actually - some female hackers look better than Jolie. The problem is yours - you spent so much of your youth watching the television, and being indoctrinated to prefer women who look like Jolie. Those of us who aren't totally indoctrinated prefer real women, who aren't draped in (tens?) thousands of dollars worth of designer clothes, hundreds of dollars worth of make up, carefully airbrushed in every image, blah, blah, blah.

You want Jolie? Go get her. Personally, I wouldn't follow her around the corner

I think you misunderstood "more like MIT". The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is a deeply traditional institution, not some revolutionary place. People go there to change the odds in their favor, not to make the world a better place.

At MIT, the word "hack" means something very specific, and not criminal or unethical. It is a impressive, creative, and clever achievement.
From http://hacks.mit.edu/ [mit.edu]
The word hack at MIT usually refers to a clever, benign, and "ethical" prank or practical joke, which is both challenging for the perpetrators and amusing to the MIT community (and sometimes even the rest of the world!). Note that this has nothing to do with computer (or phone) hacking (which we call "cracking").

Yes, they have. Most MIT "hackers" are very respectful of property and equipment, we just like to play with it.

For example: when visiting various MIT buildings and roofs somewhat illicitly one evening, we noticed that some very clumsy fools had damaged the lock leading to one of the MIT rooftops. The next week, we showed up with tools and parts and repaired the lock, so that there was no sign of damage.

Yes. I know all of this. But if you, say, reconstructed a police car on a building outside of MIT, I doubt you'll find the authorities there as accomodating of your technological accomplishments as you'd like. So go "hack the world". Even if you leave no damage and put everything back where it was, you may just find an arrest warrant out for your name.

People are commonly called out for finding exploits and security vulnerabilities. Do you honestly think a practical joke would get away unpunished? It'

I believe he meant phone as in smartphone (or tablet). I hack my phone, and occasionally hack *on* my phone, all the time, in the MIT sense. Phreaking is entirely different; that's hacking the phone system.

The word hack at MIT usually refers to a clever, benign, and "ethical" prank or practical joke, which is both challenging for the perpetrators and amusing to the MIT community (and sometimes even the rest of the world!). Note that this has nothing to do with computer (or phone) hacking (which we call "cracking").

So, the president of MIT was urging MIT students to pull clever practical jokes? That's stupid or he meant something different. Presumably he meant "hack" in the same way that people who have been actually involved with computers understand it: exploring the possibilities of a system (often including some that the inventor never intended) for the sake of discovery and in some cases using those discoveries to create unique and innovative outcomes. I get that you are trying to make a distinction between "hacking" and "cracking" but "hacking" has a meaning that transcends the special case of practical jokes that are a part of MIT folklore and if the president of MIT did not have the broader meaning in mind, then his comments are almost comical.

So, the president of MIT was urging MIT students to pull clever practical jokes?

Umm, no.

That's stupid or he meant something different. Presumably he meant "hack" in the same way that people who have been actually involved with computers understand it: exploring the possibilities of a system (often including some that the inventor never intended) for the sake of discovery and in some cases using those discoveries to create unique and innovative outcomes.

Yep. That's actually what it means at MIT too, except the origin isn't necessarily only in computers. A "hacker" at MIT is one who explores in general -- often finding ways into the deep tunnels of the sub-basements in campus buildings or on the roofs and domes, seeking what goes on in the bowels and secret places of MIT.

The famous "hacks" at MIT are merely a side-effect of that exploring culture. It's only because hackers have such intimate knowledge of the buildings and systems on campus that

You don't get to define hack. Culture does. Don't get me wrong. I'm a hacker in the original classic sense. However, Science, or even just Progress is about compression. Compression is the ability to Sense observation Decide the likely outcome based on prior observation, and Act with predictive powers given by the prior observation. If you and I have different dictionaries, we have less progress; More wasted time building a conversion table, clarifying the symbolics of communication. When faced wi

Absolutely. MIT doesn't get to define "hack" for the culture at large. However, MIT does have its own distinctive culture, and it has its own sets of terms, phrases, and special meanings (just like Slashdot).

MIT does get to define what the term "hack" means when used on its own campus, as long as its own communal culture agrees on it.

And thus, when an MIT president speaks to MIT students, he might be expected to use the term "hack" in that sense. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with this, nor is

Absolutely. MIT doesn't get to define "hack" for the culture at large.

No, but the term hacking was in use for a very long time before everyone came along and decided cracker was a better word.

Many of us are old enough to remember the term applying to both, and listening to the whining about how it's supposed to be crack instead of hack gets an eye roll, because those people weren't around when 'hack' covered a lot more.

MIT doesn't get to define the word, but people who are trying to retroactively re-define

The word hack at MIT usually refers to a clever, benign, and "ethical" prank or practical joke, which is both challenging for the perpetrators and amusing to the MIT community (and sometimes even the rest of the world!). Note that this has nothing to do with computer (or phone) hacking (which we call "cracking").

...implying there is no such thing as ethical computer/phone hacking. The way I see it, Aaron's actions CAN be seen as ethical (although possibly illegal) "hacking". After all, he was "hacking" to liberate public domain works to the larger public, which CAN be seen as ethical (although possibly illegal).

And to many of us, that's why we still use the word 'hack' in both the making something cool category and 'hacking' into a system.

To me, this insistence on using the word 'cracker' came about a decade too late -- because 'hack' was used for both for a long time, and then a bunch of people starting whining and saying it should be 'cracking'.

Well, even in software development hacking doesn't mean a clever solution, anymore. Most people writing software are not that clever. What they call a hack is usually a kludge... And cutting corners will often save 20 minutes and waste a month down the line. So, in all fairness, these "hacks" do more damage than the "crackers."

Prior to the incident with Aaron Schwartz and how it was handled by MIT, I associated nothing negative with MIT. MIT was all about higher technology learning and legendary hacks. I am saddened that MIT now conjures strong negative as well as strong positive thoughts with regards to some of the core activities that one associates with a computing career choice and lifestyle.

There is a difference between not living up to ones own standards and not having standards. Setting a good goal for yourself and telling others that this goal is good doesn't always preclude one from being weak and failing to live up to ones own expectations.

How quickly can we connect the Aaron Schwarz case as quickly as possible without sign of reflection to a random factoid?

While i certainly dont appreciate the possible punishment for copying files, what he did was *not* hacking. Hacking is ti exploit unexpected, new paths. Attaching a computer to a netwerk and copying files for releasing them, unrelated to demonstrating a new way of exploiting something is *not* hacking

no. i downloaded my thoughts on the article and the representation of the case in the media.

Not everything assumed to be a crime related to computers qualifies as "hacking"

Not everybody whom i would count as a hacker does only "Hacks"

Not every head of an institution with many departments and different interests bound by some contracts must/can represent the facet in which a certain part of people looks at it in a specific way without being forbidden to use a specific word afterwards.